myArmoury.com - Longbows that aren´t English

Posts: 392 Location: Germany

Mon 17 Apr, 2023 5:20 am

Sean Manning wrote:

Ryan S. wrote:

Mike Loades states that there are no medieval longbows that survive, but that is, of course, not true.

What bow are you thinking of? By "longbow" I wold mean a self bow (ie. a bow made of one piece of wood) about 170-190 cm long used in Catholic Europe in the 14th-16th century. So the Scandinavian bows would be too early and the Mary Rose bows would be too late and the Irish and Scottish bows don't fit the typology.

I am thinking of several bows, but except for the Hedeley Moor bow and Alcacer do Sal bow, they don’t fit in that time period. So even the Mary Rose bows aren’t longbows? Mike Loades considered the Nydam bows and Mary Rose bows both longbows. Which suggests either he was unaware of the Ballinderry or Hebedy bows, or considers them “viking age” and not medieval. There are some bows in Pfeil und Bogen by Junkmanns that are of a later date, but they are rather short. Junkmanns has a rather wide definition of both the Middle Ages and what makes a longbow. His list of bows, however, is not complete either. For example, the Waterford bows are not mentioned.

Profile PM

Anthony Clipsom

Quote

Posts: 341 Location: YORKSHIRE, UK

Mon 17 Apr, 2023 6:06 am

Ryan, are you aware of this list?

http://www.vikingage.org/wiki/wiki/Catalogue_of_Archery_Evidence

It contains mention of several bows not yet mentioned, though not necessarily all longbows.

Profile PM

Sean Manning

Quote

Posts: 894 Location: Austria

Mon 17 Apr, 2023 6:39 am

Ryan S. wrote:

Sean Manning wrote:

Ryan S. wrote:

Mike Loades states that there are no medieval longbows that survive, but that is, of course, not true.

What bow are you thinking of? By "longbow" I wold mean a self bow (ie. a bow made of one piece of wood) about 170-190 cm long used in Catholic Europe in the 14th-16th century. So the Scandinavian bows would be too early and the Mary Rose bows would be too late and the Irish and Scottish bows don't fit the typology.

I am thinking of several bows, but except for the Hedeley Moor bow and Alcacer do Sal bow, they don’t fit in that time period. So even the Mary Rose bows aren’t longbows?

The Mary Rose bows are longbows, but they are not medieval. Ever since they were found, there have been debates about how they might compare to the bows used during the Hundred Years' War. If Mike Loades said that there are no surviving medieval longbows, he presumably meant that the Mary Rose bows are too late and the Viking bows are too early.

With respect to Junkmanns I don't know of any other scholar who calls any D-sectioned self bow from Europe a longbow. You can pull a long self bow further, and since W = F⋅d a 20% increase in draw length has about the same effect as a 20% increase in draw weight. So if some medieval archers in Britain and north-west Europe were using self bows about 120 cm long, and some archers were using self bows about 180 cm long, the second group of archers would hit harder and possibly shoot further.

Profile PM

Ryan S.

Quote

Posts: 392 Location: Germany

Mon 17 Apr, 2023 7:03 am

Augusto Boer Bront wrote:

How do longbows fail to appear in Italian art?

There are a cuple.

[ Linked Image ]

From circa 1460 in Celle Macra.

[ Linked Image ]

And this is from 1464 in the Bessarione Chapel in Rome.

Also, to expand upon Orso degli Orsini statement about longbows in Italy, here's the full quote.

The context is equipping 500 sappers for the army with a bow, which should possibly be rectuited from the local populace, as they know the terrain well.
"And that said bows be either wooden long bows in the English fashion [...], or in the Turkish fashion, and that the bows should be good and the sappers be strong so they can shoot well.”

So he's pretty explicit that both self longbows and recurve (perhaps composite?) bows require strenght to be used properly and are both equally effective.

Those are some interesting pictures, the top one because of the decoration. Some of the bows that have been found are decorated, but most aren’t. The bottom picture is intriguing because of the shape.

The quote tells me that both self bows and composite bows were used in Italy. Also, the bows are supposed to be heavy, but it doesn´t tell us what heavy is. I did some googling to find out which draw weights are recommended today, and found that a lot of people have a different idea of heavy. 50 or 60 lbs is viewed by some as extreme.

Profile PM

Ryan S.

Quote

Posts: 392 Location: Germany

Mon 17 Apr, 2023 10:16 pm

Sean Manning wrote:

The Mary Rose bows are longbows, but they are not medieval. Ever since they were found, there have been debates about how they might compare to the bows used during the Hundred Years' War. If Mike Loades said that there are no surviving medieval longbows, he presumably meant that the Mary Rose bows are too late and the Viking bows are too early.

With respect to Junkmanns I don't know of any other scholar who calls any D-sectioned self bow from Europe a longbow. You can pull a long self bow further, and since W = F⋅d a 20% increase in draw length has about the same effect as a 20% increase in draw weight. So if some medieval archers in Britain and north-west Europe were using self bows about 120 cm long, and some archers were using self bows about 180 cm long, the second group of archers would hit harder and possibly shoot further.

I think Loades meant that there aren’t any surviving bows from the time period that he focuses on, but that the Mary Rose bows were the best reference. It is possible that he left out other finds to save space. Loades called his book the Longbow, but he could have just as easily called it the English Bow. I think that it is probable that Nydam type bows were used during the time that he covers. Not that there are huge difference between the Mary Rose bows and the Nydam bows.

I think Junkmanns perspective is informed by his background. He studied pre and early history and is a bowyer. He focuses more on the technical side of things. He also does not focus on medieval bows, but writes rather extensively about prehistoric bows. He sees the medieval bow as different from the prehistoric bows. Prehistoric bows have the rounded side facing the other way, as well as other differences. In my experience, most other scholars focus on length. The claim that bows haven’t changed since the stone age, and that both sides of the shortbow debate referenced art from the high middle ages, implies that the other medieval bows are longbows. Junkmanns uses short bow as a synonym for a horn bow. A practice that is confusing. Not only because one can think of a short self bow, but also the Sami wood composite bows can be quite long.

Thanks for the information about the draw length. That is interesting. The draw length can also determine the draw weight, so a change in technique could allow someone to use the same bow, but make it more powerful by increasing both the draw weight and draw length. Junkmanns calculated that the Oberflacht bow had a draw weight of 61 lbs at 60 cm, but 72 lbs at 70 cm. The effective length of the Oberflacht bows are rather short, because of the grip.

Last edited by Ryan S. on Tue 18 Apr, 2023 12:54 am; edited 1 time in total

Profile PM

Ryan S.

Quote

Posts: 392 Location: Germany

Mon 17 Apr, 2023 10:18 pm

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:

Also, there's an interesting depiction of a longbow in actual war scene: the etching by Pedro Nissart depicting the entry of King Jaime of Aragon in Mallorca, made 1468, painted by another artistic from the Balearic Islands.
[ Linked Image ]

I discussed the armor depicted in the main panel (for all purposes the same depicted here) proposing it to be Flemish and not Italian or Iberian in style, as the haute on the pauldrons scream that; and Fernando of Aragon's armor of a half-century late still has Italian pauldrons. A possible explanation could be related to the whole context of the (possible) Flemish artist that worked in the project, influence, Pero's training in the Ibero-Flemish school, and the model behind it. But everyone said it was Italian so, the discussion bogged down since then.

But the thing is: how to explain the longbow here? It was used in the Crown of Aragon only? In the Balearic Islands only? It wasn't used because it mirrored Flemish models, and Flanders DID use longbowmen? Does it have to do with the proximity with Italy? As we know Composite and Longbows were used by local Italians, although longbows failed to appear in Italian art.

The art is amazing, Pero depicts both a turkish bow in St. George's panel and a longbow here. The barbute in the etching is of course locally used, and the depiction of Moors (spear over biceps, leather adargas, clothes and the shortsword) is done by someone that KNOWS what North African people were using at that time. It's a strong case, I think.

It seems that a lot of bows could be studied more. The bow looks like the Nydam type, but it is hard to make out details from the picture.

A lot of good yew came from Spain, so it makes sense that they made bows with it. Records of bow making or shooting contests might be more conclusive than art. The engraving is interesting. I noticed the archer has different armour as well as a P on his quiver. Do you have an idea what P could stand for?

Anthony Clipsom wrote:

Ryan, are you aware of this list?

http://www.vikingage.org/wiki/wiki/Catalogue_of_Archery_Evidence

It contains mention of several bows not yet mentioned, though not necessarily all longbows.

Thanks, I did not know of that.

Profile PM

Anthony Clipsom

Quote

Posts: 341 Location: YORKSHIRE, UK

Tue 18 Apr, 2023 3:28 am

Of probable marginal relevance, but of interest nevertheless, is the oft-overlooked Adare Castle bow from Ireland. This was excavated in the 19th century and still exists. It may be another medieval survivor.

It is a yew bow but quite short. It mostly survives intact with a length of 88cm, with an addition 10-15cm missing.

It is described and illustrated in Etienne Rynne : Was Desmond Castle, Adare, erected on a ringfort? in North Munster Antiquarian Journal 1961, p.199

http://www.limerickcity.ie/media/nmaj%20vol%2...0Rynne.pdf

It is therefore perhaps an example of the Irish shortbow, similar to those found in Waterford.

Profile PM

Clifford Rogers

Quote

Posts: 48

Mon 24 Apr, 2023 2:50 am

Bartek Strojek wrote:

Two yew longbows were found in Opole in 1931, I think they were dated roughly to 11th century.

[ Linked Image ]

The better preserved one seem to be fairly standard yew bow with D shaped cross-section, though it has interesting stiffened tips.

Unfortunately they both perished during WW2, apparently.

Do you have any more information on these, particularly length?

Profile PM E-mail

Pedro Paulo Gaião

Quote

Posts: 448 Location: Sioux City, IA

Tue 25 Apr, 2023 9:47 am

Bartek Strojek wrote:

Sean Manning wrote:

Ryan S. wrote:

Why do you think that people were drawing 200 lbs bows? Has such a high weight bow ever been found? What is the advantage of a 200 lbs bow? My understanding is that the main advantage of a heavy bow is that it shoots a heavy arrow, and therefore has a better chance of piercing armour. However, I haven’t seen any numbers relating to that.

Around 200 lbs seems to be the human limit. The high estimate of the stiffest of the Mary Rose bows puts it around 190 lbs at 28" (from memory) and around 200 lbs is the highest I have heard any of the heavy bow shooters today using. And 20 to 200 pounds communicates that the range is a whole order of magnitude.
century).

Depends on what we mean by human lmit, but I think it would be way higher.

Joe Gibbs apparently shoots 215 pound monster bow in Todd's Workshop video, and quite accurately too. And Joe is apparently only about 170 pounds!

There's no doubt that some huge, 6'5'' 260 pound kind of man would be able to shoot much, much heavier bows if he was training for as long and hard as Joe has been training. And such men while rare, happen today and were happening even back then when people were smaller on average.

Then there's everything in between that and 170 pounds, of course.

I just remembered a text I discovered from a Turkish enthusiast about Janissaries in the mid-17th century made by a Polish court slave (Albertus Bobovius) in Istambul. The archers were working out with weights daily to increase their ability to pull heavier bows, the strongest of them being the Iron Bow (actually made of a big horn). They could piece through mugs, bronze bells and glasses without breaking the actual glass. It seems a lot of these objects pierced with arrows are located in the Military Museum of Istambul, which doesn't have an online catalog.

So, there's a lot of artistic evidence in the 17th century for the use of bow among the Ottomans, from the Habsburg Siege of Buda's painting to woodcut prints depicting duels between Hungarians and Turks. This could be for the lack of armor, culture and the fact that the bow was a religious weapon (according to an Islamic Historian I work with). Any ways, the source:

“Külhancılar, the strongest of içoğlans – their number is around 40- had certain room for archer training. Beginners starts with pulling a bag of stones weighting 10 okkas(12) by a rope turned around a pulley and they repeat it every day. Then the weight gradually increased up to 40 okkas (51 kg). After weight lifting, they pretend to shoot with either left or their right hands with special light bow which is bent by a chain instead of ordinary string. Eventually they became too tired to move their limbs. Later they continue to draw soft or hard bows (which were provided abundantly) all the way to arrows head. Sometimes they compete with each other in speed or endurance shooting. Some of them can shoot 200 arrows incessantly.

The arms of trainees eventually get much stronger. The purpose of this exercise is to pull Ironbow and to get title of Kemanke;. Actually the bow is not forged of iron as the name implies but it is made of great horn. A new member of Enderun even with all his strength can’t bend this bow enough enough to drop a coin placed between its string and the limb. İçoğlans try many feats with this bow like piercing an iron horseshoe. During training they sometimes use unusual bows, cane arrows, arrows without head. Some skilled shooters could pierce glass targets without shattering it. Some of them are so proficient archers that they can shoot a coin hold between two fingers.”

The book is available in a German-version at Google Books, but I got this translation from the Turkish by someone else.

[ Linked Image ]

Turk vs. Hungarian cavalry fight, mid 17th century, both sides have bows.

https://www.facebook.com/hungarianturkishwars/photos/a.1005791562803546/4672645192784813/

Someone in myArmoury once posted a primary source from the 16th century in French Brazil (modern-day Rio), where the French colonist talks about the martial qualities of the natives with a wooden club that he thinks is similar to a sword and the bow, saying they were better even than the English with their longbow, but I can remember if he's saying just about accuracy or about the draw weight as well; but he did mention that the Frenchmen weren't able to pull the native's bows. I can't find it anywhere.

Profile PM

Ryan S.

Quote

Posts: 392 Location: Germany

Sat 29 Apr, 2023 1:47 am

Anthony Clipsom wrote:

Of probable marginal relevance, but of interest nevertheless, is the oft-overlooked Adare Castle bow from Ireland. This was excavated in the 19th century and still exists. It may be another medieval survivor.

It is a yew bow but quite short. It mostly survives intact with a length of 88cm, with an addition 10-15cm missing.

It is described and illustrated in Etienne Rynne : Was Desmond Castle, Adare, erected on a ringfort? in North Munster Antiquarian Journal 1961, p.199

http://www.limerickcity.ie/media/nmaj%20vol%2...0Rynne.pdf

It is therefore perhaps an example of the Irish shortbow, similar to those found in Waterford.

That is an interesting bow. It has a handle and a hole in the terminal for a string keeper. That makes it somewhat similar to the Oberflacht bows. Junkmanns thinks it is a child’s bow. It is different from the Waterford fragments, which seems to be the group of bow terminals that have the most variety. The complete bow looks much like a Hedeby type bow and thus resembles the Bayeux tapestry, but the fragments vary quite a bit. There was also a French bow found in 2002 that has been compared to the Waterford bow, mainly because they are the same length. It appears to have a thicker grip section, though. The only information I can find is in French. I can’t find much information on the Dublin bows.

Profile PM

Veronica-Mae Soar

Quote

Posts: 5 Location: South Gloucestershire, UK

Sat 29 Apr, 2023 12:34 pm

Don't know what happened - sent two comments and they vanished.

1) Agreed, length is not the way to classify, even children's longbows are longbows. Two Tudor ones found at Acton Court would have been quite light draw weight. . A reproduction Waterford by Jeremy Spencer was not all that light but he demonstrates the likely style - drawing to the chest. short arrow., so he does not feel it was a children's bow.

2) early bows here were just called bows - sometimes the English bow, or the hand bow or the Turkie bow. It was when an inventory was being made that they distinguished bows by calling then either long or cross. Most often quoted written use is by Margaret Paston (Wars of the Roses) to her husband asking for Xbows to defend the house because "our houses are so low we cannot shoot out if them with a longbow"

Generally most historians agree that calling it long meant it was not a crossbow. So after some deliberation Jeremy, and Hugh Soar felt that (rather than short longbow) it be called the short warbow (you can see one on the Bayeaux)

(where is "browse" ?

Profile PM E-mail

Anthony Clipsom

Quote

Posts: 341 Location: YORKSHIRE, UK

Sun 30 Apr, 2023 1:35 am

Quote:

There was also a French bow found in 2002 that has been compared to the Waterford bow, mainly because they are the same length. It appears to have a thicker grip section, though. The only information I can find is in French. I can’t find much information on the Dublin bows.

Description and illustration of what is probably the same bow is given here:

Lansac, Pierre (2008) 'Les arcs de Pineuilh (Gironde)'. http://elbdisliker.at.ua/Unsorteeeeeeed/les_arcs_de_Pineuilh.pdf

Interestingly, it's made from elm.

Profile PM

Anthony Clipsom

Quote

Posts: 341 Location: YORKSHIRE, UK

Sun 30 Apr, 2023 11:55 pm

Quote:

So after some deliberation Jeremy, and Hugh Soar felt that (rather than short longbow) it be called the short warbow

Doesn't this just muddy the waters further? It does assume that there were bows specifically for military purposes that were different from bows for recreation or hunting at an earlier period.

Profile PM

Ryan S.

Quote

Posts: 392 Location: Germany

Mon 01 May, 2023 11:57 pm

Veronica-Mae Soar wrote:

Don't know what happened - sent two comments and they vanished.

1) Agreed, length is not the way to classify, even children's longbows are longbows. Two Tudor ones found at Acton Court would have been quite light draw weight. . A reproduction Waterford by Jeremy Spencer was not all that light but he demonstrates the likely style - drawing to the chest. short arrow., so he does not feel it was a children's bow.

2) early bows here were just called bows - sometimes the English bow, or the hand bow or the Turkie bow. It was when an inventory was being made that they distinguished bows by calling then either long or cross. Most often quoted written use is by Margaret Paston (Wars of the Roses) to her husband asking for Xbows to defend the house because "our houses are so low we cannot shoot out if them with a longbow"

Generally most historians agree that calling it long meant it was not a crossbow. So after some deliberation Jeremy, and Hugh Soar felt that (rather than short longbow) it be called the short warbow (you can see one on the Bayeaux)

(where is "browse" ?

I have also had comments vanish, it might have to do with the preview function. What do you mean by browse?

Archery terminology can be confusing, because it is used inconsistently, but also because bow types are often named after features that other bows can have. This is further complicated because of the differences between usage by modern archers and historians. The distinction between longbow and recurve bow that is often used by modern archers corresponds roughly to the historical bow types referred to as the English bow and the Turkish bow, however, there are clear differences between the various modern types and their historical equivalent. The usage of national descriptions can also be misleading. I think more so in the case of the term Turkish bow, because it isn’t clear (at least to me) if historical sources always mean the type of composite bow used by the Turks, or to refer to all composite bows.

The term “War Bow” has its drawbacks as well, like Anthony pointed out. It implies a distinction between warbows and other bows that might not be there. Also, using it as a synonym for longbow, can be confusing because other bows were used for war. Some bows, could very well have been used for hunting. In fact, some historians, believe that there was no distinction between bows used for war and those for hunting or target practice in the early Middle Ages. In certain contexts, the term war bow makes sense. For example, when one is making statements that would only apply to bows used for war. I think the best way to look at the bows and make up a typology, not start with the typology and try to fit the bows into it.

I think you bring up an important point about the draw length. Draw length is significant, as Sean said, and short bows have short draw lengths. If and when a longer draw length was adapted is a critical question, because I think that a long draw length could be part of the definition of a longbow. In which case the overall length is less important, but rather the nock to nock measurement.

Profile PM

Ryan S.

Quote

Posts: 392 Location: Germany

Tue 02 May, 2023 12:29 am

Anthony Clipsom wrote:

Quote:

There was also a French bow found in 2002 that has been compared to the Waterford bow, mainly because they are the same length. It appears to have a thicker grip section, though. The only information I can find is in French. I can’t find much information on the Dublin bows.

Description and illustration of what is probably the same bow is given here:

Lansac, Pierre (2008) 'Les arcs de Pineuilh (Gironde)'. http://elbdisliker.at.ua/Unsorteeeeeeed/les_arcs_de_Pineuilh.pdf

Interestingly, it's made from elm.

Yes, that is the one. It doesn’t seem to be much like the complete Waterford bow.

Elm or wych elm, I am not sure if there is an important distinction, seemed to be the second-best bow wood in Europe at the time, but I have not been able to get an idea on how much worse it was than yew or how much better than other types of woods.

Profile PM